SPE 128359
Statistical Diagnosis(VEMST) of Flow Regime: Alternative to Pressure
Derivative Approach in Pressure Transient Analysis—Part I
Biu Victor. T. Total E & P Nigeria, Biu Emmanuel .O. University Of Port Harcourt, Onyekonwu Mike.O,
Laser Engineering Consultant
Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 33rd Annual SPE International
Technical Conference and Exhibition in Abuja, Nigeria, August 3-5, 2009.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of
the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum
Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented,
does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic
reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes
without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited.
Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian,
SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Before the early eighties, identification of
flow regime has been a difficult task for reservoir
engineer and welltest analyst until the emergence of
the derivative approach. This approach has helped
to reduce the uncertainties of the interpretation of
welltest result because key regions of radial flow and
boundary features required for reservoir
characterization, description and evaluation have
been adequately diagnose. However the approach is
complex for non-mathematician and an alternative
method for improving its interpretation and reducing
the difficulty of its practical application haven’t been
discovered most especially where there is
inconsistency in data sampling.
The statistical approach(VEMST) utilized
simple statistical tools such as StatDiff, StatDev and
StatExp derived from time series analysis to identify
possible unseen features, diagnose key flow regime
for reservoir description and act as
checkmate/alternative to the derivative approach to
interpret complex features.
Result from channel sand, low and high
permeability reservoir, infinite conductivity fractures,
dual porosity and/or permeability reservoir show
same trend as the derivative approach and also
diagnose unseen features such as dual permeability,
geologically interpreted as layered reservoir system
and also double porosity model with high degree of
accuracy.
Introduction
In the oil and gas industry, accurate reserve
estimate, well capacity and efficient reservoir
management in field development depend on
precise analysis and result of reservoir monitoring
techniques such as pressure transient analysis. This
prompted the introduction of the fluid flow diffusivity
model using only one fraction of data by Muskat
(1934) and Theis (1935). However in 1949, Van
Everdingen and Hurst simplified the complex model
using Laplace transformation in flow problem and
published solutions of the diffusivity equation which
is the basis of pressure transient analysis.
Since then, more work has been done by
renowned researchers such as MDH et al (1950)
introducing the pressure-time curve for welltest
analysis. Horner (1951) modified the method using the
cumulative production time concept for wells with
production history before shut-in for pressure build-up.
In 1954, MBH et al also worked on average pressure
determination using the pressure-time curves.
However for quick well and reservoir model
description, an easier and faster identification of flow
regimes is required. This prompted Agarwal et al
(1970) to introduced the dimensionless type curve
using pressure function which helps to reduce the
degree of uncertainties in the estimation and
interpretation of the pressure-time result. In 1979,
Gringarten et al and Ramey et al (1982) proposed and
generated various dimensionless type curve for
different well and reservoir conditions.
However the greatest breakthrough in
welltest analysis was the introduction of the
derivative approach by French Mathematician
Dominique Bourdet in 1983 which has been used to
identified flow regimes, boundary response and
diagnose complex features.
2 T. Biu, E.O. Biu and M.O. Onyekonwu SPE 128359

Radial Flow Spherical Flow

Linear Flow Bilinear Flow

Fig. 1 - Distinct Flow Patterns In Transient Tests (Ehlig-Economides

et al., 1994

The Derivatives Approach

Fig. 2 - Type Curves For A Well With Wellbore Storage And
The diagnosis of flow regimes in a pressure Skin Effects (Bourdet et al., 1983)
transient analysis, which appear as distinctive
patterns in the pressure-derivative curve, is a vital It is observed that at early times all the curves merge
point in welltest analysis since each flow regime into a unit-slope straight line corresponding to pure
reflects the geometry of the flow streamlines in the wellbore storage; however the derivative curves tend
tested formation. Hence for each flow regime to a single horizontal line, representing pure radial
identified, a set of well and/or reservoir parameters flow at late times. Several sets of type curves have
can be estimated using the region of the transient been developed to account for different
data that exhibits the characteristic pattern combinations of wellbore, reservoir characteristics,
behaviour. As shown in Figure 1, there are a number boundary effects associated flow regimes, and also
of flow regimes that exhibit characteristic flow computation of well and reservoir parameters. This
patterns, such as radial, spherical, linear, bilinear, demonstrates that the log-log plot of the pressure-
etc., which appear as distinct fingerprints in the derivative is a powerful tool for model identification
pressure-derivative curve, then such region of in pressure transient analysis.
pressure response will be analyzed in the
specialized plot. The algorithm for the pressure derivative model is
show below;
In addition to single diagnostic tools and plots, type
curves were also developed in order to help identify
⎛ ∂p ⎞ ⎛ ∂p ⎞
the model selection and the correct curves to be ⎜ ⎟ = t ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
used in the specialized analyses. Figure 2 shows ⎝ ∂ ln t ⎠ ⎝ ∂p ⎠ i
series of type curves for different values of skin ⎛t t ⎞ ⎛t ⎞
ln⎛⎜ i ⎞⎟Δpi+j ln⎜⎜ i+j i−k 2 ⎟⎟Δpi
t ln⎜ i+j ⎟Δpi+k
factor and wellbore storage constant, considering ti ⎠
i ⎠
⎝ i−k ⎠ + ⎝ − ⎝
t t
infinite acting reservoir behaviour. =
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ t ⎛t ⎞
ln⎜ i+j ⎟ln⎜ i+j ⎟ ln⎜ i+j ⎟ln⎛⎜ i ⎞⎟ ln⎛⎜ i ⎞⎟ln⎜ i+j ⎟
t t t t
⎝ ti ⎠ ⎝ ti−k ⎠ ⎝ ti ⎠ ⎝ ti−k ⎠ ⎝ ti−k ⎠ ⎝ ti−k ⎠
………………………………………………………….1
Horne, R.N.(1995).

However the algorithm is difficult for practical

application by non-mathematician with strong
welltest analytical and interpretation skills. Hence
there is need to introduced a simplistic approach to
reduced the difficulty in analyzing pressure transient
test and improve the interpretation of complex and
unseen features where there is inconsistency
sampling data.
3 Statistical Diagnosis (VEMST) of Flow Regime SPE 128359

The Statistical Approach

The statistical models are derived from differencing
method in time series analysis which is common in 1st Pressure Diff
Fixed Initial Value
advanced statistical forecasting where it is often
used to transform a nonstationary time series into a
stationary time series. Intuitively, a time series is
stationary if the statistical properties such as mean Difference Divided Difference Divided By SSE
and variance of the time series are essentially (StatDiv)Fixed Initial Value (StatSSE)Fixed Initial Value
constant through time.
If we have observed n values y1,y2,………….yn of a
time series, we can use a plot of these values
2nd Pressure Diff Time Diff Divided
(against time) to help us determine whether the time
series is stationary. If the n values seem to fluctuate
with constant variation around a constant mean,
Standdev SQRT (STDEV, SSE)
then is reasonable to believe that the time series is
stationary. However if the n values do not fluctuate
around a constant mean or do not fluctuate with
constant variation, then it is reasonable to believe Product--StatDev Exponential--StatExp
(Statdiv, SQRT, 2nd Diff Pressure) (Statdiv, SQRT, 2nd Diff Pressure)
that the time series is non-stationary.
The first difference of the time series values
y1,y2,…….yn are; Fig3 Workflow For Statistical Models Formulation
zt = yt − yt −1
………………………………………….2
Where t=2...n
To illustrate, we list the original values and the first
difference values of a time series Statdiv
Statdiv
Original values First difference Statdiff
y1 (Semilog)
Statsse
y2 z2 = y2 − y1
y3 z3 = y3 − y2
yn-1
yn zn = yn − yn −1
Although in statistical data analysis for time series
and forecasting, first difference may not accurately Statdev Statexp
transform the nonstationary time series into (Log-log) (Log-log)
stationary time series, hence the second difference
approach serve as an alternative to such condition

The statistical approach (VEMST) utilized simple Fig4 Statistical Models For Flow Regime Identification
statistical tools such as the product and exponential
of 1st and 2nd difference of well pressure tied to the
standard deviation and sum of square difference of
this data to generate the statistical models such as The VEMST algorithm for StatDiff is shown below;
StatDiff, StatDev and StatExp which identify possible
unseen features, key flow regimes for reservoir Z pi = P0 − Pi ...................................................3
description and improve interpretation of complex
features. Figure 3 shows the statistical workflow for Z t i = t0 − ti .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ...4
the model formulation while Figure 4 displays the Z pi
models generated using the approach. The idea is to Statdiv = ................................................5
keep it simple for non-mathematician with strong P1
reservoir and welltest analytical skills. SSE
⎡Zp ⎤
StatSSE = ⎢ i ⎥ .......................................6
⎣ P1 ⎦
4 T. Biu, E.O. Biu and M.O. Onyekonwu SPE 128359

Where the SSE= Sum of square error for the Statdiv same late time response as StatExp. To improve on
and Equation3. The StatDiff comprises of StatDiv the interpretation of this unseen feature in the
and StatSSE. derivative, the StatDiff was plotted as seen in Figure
For the VEMST diagnostic models such as StatDev 6b which shows three flow regimes (radial—
and StatExp, the algorithm is shown below; pseudosteady--radial) confirming the features
diagnose by the StatExp and StatDev. Integration of
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ petrophysics and geology will aid a better
Statdev= Statdiv*⎜⎜ Z p − Z p ⎟⎟ * stdv⎜⎜ Z p − Z p ⎟⎟ *⎜⎜ Zt − Zt ⎟⎟ * SSE interpretation of this unseen feature by the
⎝ i i −1⎠ ⎝ i i −1⎠ ⎝ i i −1⎠
.......................................................................................7 derivative. This is expected in part II of this paper.

StatExp = Statdiv * Exp(− Z pi − Z pi −1 ( ) − sdev

) Channel Sand Reservoir System
.....................................................................8a A build-up test after a period of 720 hours flow with
Where permeability about 340md and reservoir pressure of
( )(
Sdev= stdvZpi − Zpi −1 * Zti − Zti −1 * SSE ) 2900 psi.

.......................................................................................8b Result

The generated statistical models in Equation 5, 6, 7 In Figure 7a, the StatDev late time response shows
and 8a are plotted against time in a log-log and a long period of linear flow, which is characteristic of
semi-log graph as indicated in Figure 4. However flow in channels. This channel feature is also
the Statdev and StatExp are diagnostic in nature depicted in the derivative as indicated in Figure 7b at
exhibiting same trend as the pressure derivative plot late time response. In addition, Figure 8 shows the
while the Statdiff is more of the pressure-time curve radial-linear flow response sharply depicted by
but differ in that flow regime can also be easily StatSSE which is in-line with the reservoir and
identified from the plot. Nevertheless several case boundary response diagnose by the StatDev.
studies on different reservoir system are
Infinite Conductivity Fracture Reservoir System;
comprehensively discussed to show the efficacy of
the approach. For an infinite conductivity fracture reservoir as show
in Figure 9a, the StatDev late time response shows
a long period of linear flow, characteristic of flow in
Discussion of Case Studies infinite conductivity fractures. The derivative in
Figure 9b exhibits the same pressure trend.
All pressure data used for the case studies are Nevertheless, in Figure 10, the StatDiff (most
design data (test and examples) obtained from especially StatSSE) shows a clear feature of infinite
Automate Windowstm application welltest demo conductivity fracture with a long linear flow regime
software (1995) and Onyekonwu (1997) example. validating the reservoir response identified by the
However this paper has three parts in which part I StatDev.
focuses only on the diagnostic nature of the
statistical tool as depicted in the case studies. Dual Porosity Reservoir System

High K Reservoir In Niger Delta Nigeria In Figure 11a, the StatDev identified key features for
the dual porosity model including, radial flow within
The reservoir permeability ranges between 800md the primary and secondary porosity. The dip
and above, with light oil PVT properties. The well between the radial flows along the porosity model
capacity is above 1000 STB/Days with reservoir confirmed the dual porosity model as indicated in the
pressure close to 5000 psi. StatDev plot. The derivative in Figures 11b exhibits
same pressure trend. In addition, the StatDiff depicts
Result double radial flow (primary and secondary porosity
response) as seen in the semilog- pressure-curve
The StatExp diagnostic plot as seen in Figure 5a
response of the dual porosity model in Figure 12.
depicts the radial flow regime at transient condition
and pseudo-steady flow at the late time. However Low Permeability Reservoir System;
the derivative plot in Figure 5b exhibit the same
pressure trend but differ after the late time response Infinite Acting Reservoir
in which StatExp indicates the present of another
radial flow geologically interpreted as a double This is a drawdown test in a well with wellbore
permeability feature, possibly a layer reservoir storage and skin. In Figure 13a, the StatDev
system. In Figure 6a, the StatDev also exhibits the indicates an infinite acting reservoir response. The
5 Statistical Diagnosis (VEMST) of Flow Regime
derivative shows same feature as seen in Figure
13b. However, in Figure 14 the StatDiff indicates the
radial flow infinite acting in nature as depicted by
StatDev.
Close Boundary Reservoir
This is a drawdown tests showing the effect of a
closed boundary response in the reservoir. In Figure
15a, the StatDev depicts a radial flow regime with a
unit slope straight line at late time indicating a close
boundary response. The derivative also exhibits
same radial and boundary response in Figure15 b.
The Statdiff plot as seen in Figure 16 shows two flow
regimes (radial-pseudosteady) confirming the
reservoir and boundary response diagnose by the
StatDev. Nevertheless noisy data was noticed within
the radial region of both StatDev and the derivative.
Acidized Reservoir System;
This is a build-up test showing the reservoir
response in a stimulated well. In Figure 17a, the
StatDev shows a flat radial flow regime indicating a
fracture well model /or acidized reservoir response.
The derivative exhibits same pressure response as
seen in Figure 17b. Nevertheless, in Figure 18, the
StatDiff (especially the StatSSE) depicts an infinite
radial flow regime which is a clear feature of a
stimulated/or fracture model response validating the
reservoir response diagnose by the StatDev
Superposition Time Effect;
This is a build-up test to show the superposition time
effect on reservoir response. In this case, the well
producing time of 21.6 hrs is short relative to the
shut-in time, so the effect of time superposition is
seen on the StatDev and derivative plot. In Figure
19a and 19b, the derivative and the StatDev exhibit
similar pressure trend depicting the superposition
time effect on reservoir response. However the
StatDev differs slightly due to sharp dropped in
pressure in the plot. This feature can be easily
diagnose and interpreted using other reservoir
analysis tools.
High Permeability Reservoir System, Horizontal Well
This is a drawdown test to show the reservoir and
boundary response for horizontal well in a high K
reservoir system. In Figure 21 and 22, the StatDev
and derivative exhibit same pressure trend,
indicating an early time and late time radial flow
behaviour interpreted as a high permeability
reservoir with horizontal well. There is some
indication of hemiradial flow in this response in the
derivative. However the StatDev exhibits similar
trend and reservoir features.
SPE 128359
Conclusion
The following inference was drawn after analysis
and interpretation of the result of case studies
utilizing the StatDev and StatDiff approach:
Both approach exhibits same well, reservoir and
boundary response as seen in all cases considered.
Also possible flow regimes are easily identified.
StatDev and StatExp identified unseen features
such as dual permeability response, geologically
interpreted as layered reservoir system in the 1st
case considered in the derivative at late time
response and its interpretation confirmed by StatDiff.
The radial-pseudosteady-radial response of StatDev
and StatExp make the VEMST approach a detail
diagnostic tool.
Late time boundary response for cases with
limited data can be diagnose as indicated in Low
and High permeability reservoir system where there
is sharp change in pressure trend toward the end of
the data.
The Statistical approach (StatDev, StatExp and
StatDiff) are precise in identification of flow regimes
and reservoir features as exhibited by the derivative
approach.
However, the approach is simple, easily
applicable by non mathematicians as indicated in
the workflow.
Good statistical reservoir diagnostic tool with
high degree of accuracy, as it’s identify same
reservoir features with the derivative approach.
Future Work
However to advanced its application in the industry,
more work including the following is expected
Integrate geological and petrophysical studies to
new and/or complex features diagnose for better
interpretation
Testing the approach in more complex well and
reservoir model, and gas fields data.
Introduction of slope/or statistical parameter to
identify well and reservoir model
Reduction of noise in some data using statistical
smoothing factor, however the derivative also exhibit
such noise for all cases considered.
Estimation of permeability from the approach
6 T. Biu, E.O. Biu and M.O. Onyekonwu
Reference:
Anderson T.W (1971),”The statistics analysis of time
series”, New York wiley
Agarwal, R.G., AL-Hussainy, R., and Ramey, H.J.JR
(1970). An investigation of wellbore and skin effect
in unsteady liquid flow I. Analytical; treatment. SPE
J., Sept 279-290.
Bourdet, D. et al. (1983) A new set of type curves
simplifies well test analysis. World Oil, 196(6), 95-
106.
Box.G.E.P and Jenkins G.M (1976)” Time series
analysis, forecasting and control, 2d Ed
Sanfrancisco holden-day
Ehlig-Economides, C.A.; Hegeman, P.; Vik, S.
(1994) Guidelines simplify well test interpretation. Oil
and Gas Journal, Jul. 1994.
http://www.petroway.com/amw.htm; Automate
Windowstm Application Welltest Software (1995) Test
and Examples of welltest, Demo copy” Petroway Inc,
Palo Alto, California.
Gringarten A.C, Bourdet D.P, Landel, P.A, and
Kniazeff V.J,(1979) A comparison between different
skin and wellbore storage typecurve for early time
transient analysis, SPE paper 8205, 54th Annual fall
meeting Las Vegas Texas.
the piezonmetric surface and the rate and duration
of discharges of well using ground-water storage
TRANS. AGU 519-524.
Van Everdigen, A.F, and Hurst, W.(1949). The
application of Laplace transformation for flow
problem in reservoirs. TRANS AIME.186, 305-324.
Zheng, S.-Y. (2008a) Radial flow and well testing
basics, Well Testing lecture presentation, Institute of
Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University,
Edinburgh, Jan. 2008.
Zheng, S.-Y. (2008b) Wellbore storage, radial
derivative and type curve analysis, Well Testing
lecture presentation, Institute of Petroleum
Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Jan.
2008.
Zheng, S.-Y. (2008c) Well testing semi-infinite acting
reservoir systems, Well Testing lecture presentation,
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt
University, Edinburgh, Jan. 2008.
SPE 128359
Horne, R.N. (1995). Modern welltest analysis.
Petroway Inc, Palo Alto, California.
Horner. D. R., (1951). Pressure build-ups in wells.
PROC. Third world Pet-congs E.L. Brill. Leiden
II.503-521. Also reprint series, No 9 Pressure
analysis methods, SPE of AIME. Dallas (1967) 25-
43.
Matthews, C.S, Brons, F. and Hazebroek, P.,(1954)
A method for determination of average pressure in a
bounded reservoir. TRANS AIME, 201, 182-1914.
o
Also reprint series N P- Pressure analysis method,
SPE, 51-60.
Miller, C.C, Dyes, A.B., and Hutchinson, C.A.,(1950).
Estimation of k and reservoir pressure from
bottomhole pressure buildup characteristics. TRANS
AIME, 189, 91-104
Muskat, M., (1934). The flow of compressible fluid
through porous media and some problems in heat
conduction physics, march
Onyekonwu, M.O (1997). General Principle of
bottomhole pressure tests. Laser Engineering
Consultant, Port Harcourt, pp56-58
Ramey.H.J. Jr., (1982) Pressure Transient testing.
J.Pet tech, July, 1407-1413
Theis, C.V., (1935). The relation between the
lowering of
Zheng, S.-Y. (2006) Fighting against non-unique
solution problems in heterogeneous reservoirs
through numerical well testing. In: SPE Asia Pacific
Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Adelaide,
Sep. 2006, SPE 100951.
Nomenclature And Symbols
VEMST; Victor Emmanuel Mike Statistical
Techniques
Statdiff; Statistical difference
Statdev; Statistical deviation
Statdev; Statistical exponential
StatSSE; Statistical sum of square
Statdiv; Statistical divisible
Wellbore Storage Region
Radial Flow Regime
Pseudosteady flow
Linear Flow
Appreciation; To Prof Mike Onyekonwu for his in-
depth technical support to this paper.
 7 Statistical Diagnosis (VEMST) of Flow Regime SPE 128359

High K Reservoir in Niger

Delta Nigeria

100000
100
StatExp
Derivative
1000
StatExp Model For Flow Regime Diagnosis
10

10

1
0.1
Derivatives Diagnostics Of Flow Regime

0.001 0.1
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
Time(hrs)
Time(hrs) derivative

Fig 5a and b Comparison of StatExp and Derivative Diagnostics Approach

1 72 25

StatSSE
20
StatDev 54

15
StatDiv
0.1 36
10

18
5
StatDev Diagnostics Of Flow Regime Pdd ^sse P diff div

0.01 0 0
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
Time(hrs) Time(Hrs)

Fig 6 a and b StatDev And StatDiff Diagnostic Plot For High Perm System
 8 T. Biu, E.O. Biu and M.O. Onyekonwu SPE 128359

Channel Sand Reservoir

10
1000
pddexp-Test2
StatDev
Derivative
1

100
0.1

Derivative Approach
0.01
10
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
Time hrs pddexp Time Hrs derivative

Fig7 a and b Comparison of StatDev and Derivative Diagnostics Approach

10 Test2
25
StatSSE
8 20

6 15
StatDiv
4 10

2 5

0 0
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Time Hrs P diff div Pdd ^sse

Fig 8 Comparison of StatSSE & StatDiv Diagnostic Plot for Channel Sand System
 9 Statistical Diagnosis (VEMST) of Flow Regime SPE 128359

Infinite Conductivity Fracture

Reservoir

1000
1000

StatDev Derivative
10 100

0.1
10
Derivative Approach
Statistical Approach--pddexp

0.001
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1
Time Hrs pddexp 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
derivative
Time Hrs
Fig 9 a and b Comparison of StatDev and Derivative Diagnostics Approach

400 35

28
300
StatDiv
21
200
StatSSE
14

100
7
Statistical Approach---Example5
0 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time Hrs
Pdd ^sse P diff div

Fig 10 Comparison of StatSSE & StatDiv Diagnostic Plot for Infinite Conductivity System
 10 T. Biu, E.O. Biu and M.O. Onyekonwu SPE 128359

Dual Porosity Reservoir

System

100
1

Derivative
StatDev
0.1
10
Dip
Dip
0.01

1
0.001
Derivatives Diagnostics Of Flow Regime--Test24
Statistical Diagnostics Of Flow Regime--Test
0.0001 0.1
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000
Time(hrs) Time(hrs) derivative

Fig 11 a and b Comparison of StatDev and Derivative Diagnostics Approach

12
StatDiv
6

8 StatSSE
4

4
2

0 0
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000
Time(Hrs)
Pdd ^sse P diff div

Fig 12 Comparison of StatSSE & StatDiv Diagnostic Plot for Low K System
 11 Statistical Diagnosis (VEMST) of Flow Regime SPE 128359

Low K Reservoir,
Infinite Acting System

100
10000
StatDev
Derivative
10
1000

1 100

Statistical Diagnostics Of Flow Regime--Example1.0 Derivatives Diagnostics Of Flow Regime

0.1 10
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Time(hrs) Time(hrs) derivative

Fig 13 a and b Comparison of StatDev and Derivative Diagnostics Approach

100 High-perm
25
StatDiv

20
75
StatSSE
15
50
10

25
5

0 0
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Time(Hrs) Pdd ^sse P diff div

Fig 14 Comparison of StatSSE & StatDiv Diagnostic Plot for Low K System
 12 T. Biu, E.O. Biu and M.O. Onyekonwu SPE 128359

Low K Reservoir,
Close Boundary System

1000 10000

StatDev
Derivative
100 1000

10 100

StatDev Diagnostics Of Flow Regime-Example1A

Derivatives Diagnostics Of Flow Regime-Example 1A
1 10
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Time(hrs) Time(hrs) derivative

Fig 15 a and b Comparison of StatDev and Derivative Diagnostics Approach

160 30
StatSSE

120
StatDiv 20

80

10
40

0 0
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Time(Hrs) Pdd ^sse P diff div

Fig 16 Comparison of StatSSE & StatDiv Diagnostic Plot for Low K System
 13 Statistical Diagnosis (VEMST) of Flow Regime SPE 128359

Low K Reservoir,
Acidized Well

10000 1000

1000 100

100
10
StatDev
10 Derivative
1
1
0.1
0.1
Derivative Approach
StatDev Approach--Test1
0.01
0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
0.01 0.1 1 Time Hrs10 100 1000 Time Hrs derivative
pddexp

Fig 17 a and b Comparison of StatDev and Derivative Diagnostics Approach

150000 15000

12000
100000
StatDiv 9000
StatSSE
6000
50000

Statdiv & StatSSE Method 3000

0 0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time Hrs P diff div Pdd ^sse

Fig 18 Comparison of StatSSE & StatDiv Diagnostic Plot for Low K System
 14 T. Biu, E.O. Biu and M.O. Onyekonwu SPE 128359

Low K Reservoir,
Superposition Time Effect

1000 10000

100
StatDev 1000 Derivative
10
100
1

0.1 10
Derivative Approach
Statistical Approach--Example2
0.01
1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time Hrs pddexp
Time Hrs derivative

Fig19 a and b Comparison of StatDev and Derivative Diagnostics Approach

40
StatSSE

30

20

StatDiv

10

Example 2

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time Hrs Pdd ^sse P diff div

Fig21 a and b Comparison of StatSSE & StatDiv Diagnostic Plot for Low K System
 15 Statistical Diagnosis (VEMST) of Flow Regime SPE 128359

High K Reservoir,
Horizontal Well

100

Derivative
10

Derivative Approach
0.1
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time Hrs derivative

Fig22 Derivative Diagnostics Response For Horizontal Well With High K Reservoir

100

StatDev
10

Statistical Approach--Test6
0.1
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time Hrs pddexp

Fig23 Statdev Diagnostics Response For Horizontal Well With High K Reservoir